LONE RANGER:250 mil gets you canceled but 215 mil is just right ?

Discussion in 'Movies' started by montrealfilmguy, Sep 27, 2011.

  1. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    282
    Well, it will be interesting to see how Stanton adjusts his directing style for "FINDING DORY". Both WALL-E and JC were stories that meandered and were somewhat indulgent.
     
  2. mattCR

    mattCR Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,515
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Lee Summit, Missouri
    Real Name:
    Matt
    Slate did a story recently where they asked young kids o rank the Pixar movies, and Finding Nemo faired very poorly.
     
  3. TravisR

    TravisR Studio Mogul

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Messages:
    26,629
    Likes Received:
    3,798
    Location:
    The basement of the FBI building
    I'm glad someone said it. You can blame an ad campaign for lack of box office success but you can't blame an ad campaign for a movie being lousy.
     
  4. dpippel

    dpippel HTF Premium Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    712
    Real Name:
    Doug
    No film featuring a scantily-clad Lynn Collins can be considered "terrible" IMO. :D

    Seriously though, I didn't think JC was THAT bad. It just wasn't that GOOD.
     
  5. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    282
    No kidding. Stanton's films tend to meander and there is very little rapid cutting in his films. FINDING NEMO is a film that plays more to parents or adults than little kids. I don't take the opinions of ADD afflicted kids, that are used to rapid cutting, seriously when it comes to a slow-paced film about the pitfalls and worries of parenting. FN wasn't about Nemo. It was about Marlin's growth as a parent, so why would a little kid find that as interesting some of Pixar's other films.

    I consider BRAVE to be one of Pixar's biggest misfires, but I can still watch it.
     
  6. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    282
    Like 90% of Hollywood's output. Bad movie, good movie, it's all relative.
     
  7. dpippel

    dpippel HTF Premium Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,183
    Likes Received:
    712
    Real Name:
    Doug
    Sorry Edwin, but 90% of Hollywood's output doesn't include Lynn Collins. I'm ready to forgive Stanton. ;)
     
  8. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    282
    Ha ha. Really. I mean, I'm not saying that it was a great movie, just not as awful as everyone seems to like to make it out to be. She would definitely be a saving grace in the film. I, generally, can find something I like about most films, even if I think they are bad.

    It's like "Battlefield Earth". Sure, it was an abysmally shitty film and I would never forgive or attempt to excuse John Travolta for producing something so incredibly awful; however, on the flip side, there was something hilariously entertaining in watching Travolta go off the deep end with his acting, because the director was powerless to reign in Travolta's enormous ego. It was an education on what can result when a director loses or never has any control of his film.
     
  9. Ejanss

    Ejanss Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    376
    Real Name:
    EricJ
    (51%? Well, um, I guess technically that means you're not "alone", but doesn't that suggest you're in the minority? I'm not sure of your angry point, here....)

    Carter took a story NOBODY (except the book-fan faithful) had heard of, and treated it with serious fan-evangelism, whether it was the lame trailer that reminded too many people of Prince of Persia or not. Ranger, OTOH, takes a story it was nervously convinced everyone in the entire country has heard of already, and didn't know whether to "update" it with CGI foofarah or "parody" it with quirky humor, and according to most of the most of the early reviews, the schizophrenia shows.
    Call it an abstract ingredient, but a little integrity will get you a long way. If a true Ranger fan had been writing the script, we'd have seen a lot fewer elephants and possessed outlaws.
    As long as we're deconstructing "mysterious" big-budget flops, Battlefield: Earth was literally not technically any better or worse than any average made-for-SyFy epic the Asylum cranks out on an average week, with Travolta in the Eric Roberts role. (We showed it at an annual sci-fi festival one year; the entire audience was expecting an Ed Wood howler, they ended up showing "Galaxina" first, and....oh, how can you follow an act like that?)
    What B:E did have was an audience laying traps for it, and dancing victory dances on the box office grave. Anyone here remember the kitsch cult-phrase "It's a popcorn movie!" or wonder where it came from?--The Scient*l*g*sts had made themselves particularly noisome in thinking that they could pull the wool over the audience's eyes with a lot of summer-movie marketing, and use a lot of really-kewl-spaceships to keep us from finding out we were being hit up for contributions at the airport--When they found out they couldn't, our sarcasm as a rebellious audience got a little...gleeful: Remember how we were all rather excessively beating up on Battleship last year, because Hasbro thought we'd all rush like sheep to a movie that looked like Transformers?--Yyyyeah. Kinda like that. Only more so. :P
    Or as my collection of movie terms puts it, "The Hook Factor":
    Do little kids really want to see sentimental stories of bad-parent guilt as much as new-daddy screenwriters and directors want to write and direct them?
    (That said, however, Dory speaking Whale will crack up any kid between the ages of 3-9. Anywhere. Anytime. Rather annoyingly so, in fact. ;) )
     
  10. mattCR

    mattCR Executive Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Messages:
    10,515
    Likes Received:
    385
    Location:
    Lee Summit, Missouri
    Real Name:
    Matt
    Well, I thought Transformers was bad, but Battle Field Earth -IS- measurably worse than most. There are some reasons for that: (1) It doesn't have a consistent plot of any sort (2) DUTCH ANGLES (3) Horricially acted (4) Bad effects.

    If you're comparing it to a Saturday afternoon SyFy channel film, then that's one thing, but you can't reasonably make the comparison to "any generic scifi film"
     
  11. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    I have seen a lot of films, Battlefield Earth isn't that bad compared to some of the Z list stuff out there, i could name countless films made over the last few years on a low budget that use cheap CGI, everything from rip-off zombie flicks to cheap paranormal rubbish, BattleField Earth is a masterpiece compared to some of them, i also say if you think a film like BattleField Earth is the worst you have ever seen then you haven't seen enough films.
     
  12. RobertR

    RobertR Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 1998
    Messages:
    9,694
    Likes Received:
    164
    That highlights the really sad part about today's bad films. Unlike those "Z list, "low budget", "cheap" films, these people have OODLES of money to throw around, PLENTY to hire good actors and writers. But no, they'd rather spend it on cramming the movie full of CGI effects and decibels.
     
  13. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    Too much spent on effects and not enough spent on a decent script, the trouble is some of these films sell, thus we get more.
     
  14. Quentin

    Quentin Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,670
    Likes Received:
    101
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Quentin H
    Good thing this thread has turned into a JC fest because the Lone Ranger isn't worth this much dialogue. It is garbage.

    I'm on the fence with JC - it has potential in Lynn Collins, and Willem Dafoe. But, it also has Taylor Kitsch - a miserable excuse for a leading "actor". And, it meanders a bit. It tried to combine too many JC ideas from the books and failed to captivate us over a strong central idea.
     
  15. FoxyMulder

    FoxyMulder 映画ファン

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,236
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Location:
    Scotland
    Real Name:
    Malcolm
    If Taylor Kitsch is the leading man in a film then it's automatically a flop, he is a jinx, just kidding Taylor, or am i. ?
     
  16. SilverWook

    SilverWook Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Messages:
    2,033
    Likes Received:
    486
    Real Name:
    Bill
    Maybe they would have been better off asking people old enough to have seen the movie when it came out ten years ago? :lol:
     
  17. Ejanss

    Ejanss Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    376
    Real Name:
    EricJ
    Maybe--Remember, the whole Pixar Worship, as well as the "Traditional animation is dead!" panic never happened until Hollywood couldn't explain why Nemo was out-grossing, and then re-out-grossing every single big Hollywood action blockbuster of 2003. (Ie., pretty much the same reason this summer that Monsters U and Despicable 2 are out-grossing Man of Steel.)
    One other reason is that we were just coming out of a big third-party animation gold-rush glut started by the surprise success of Paramount's "Rugrats Movie" in '97, and every corporate studio parent-company and his brother was pumping out feature movies, while the indie wannabes were still pumping out Disney clones. Analysts LITERALLY didn't know one studio brandname from another--Why should they; Pixar had had a hit with Monsters Inc. and Dreamworks had had a hit with Shrek, it was all a gold commodity.
    And then the Bubble burst: 2002-03 racked up a record-breaking number of hi-profile animated flops, including "Spirit", "Powerpuff Girls Movie", "Final Fantasy", 'Teacher's Pet", "Hey Arnold" and "Treasure Planet", and the same analysts who couldn't distinguish why one studio had a hit now couldn't distinguish why one studio had a flop--If it was all "commodity", then there must be some mass commodity reason why they were all doing so poorly...Maybe it was a social change!

    The panic over studios unable to explain why Nemo was a hit with audiences only gave it more of a mythos with the new Pixar fans who knew why and were just beginning to celebrate the brandname. Nobody had noticed Pixar until Toy Story 2, and Monsters had been overshadowed by X vs. Y comparisons to Shrek; Nemo was one of the first movies that had audiences gushing over favorite characters and storytelling styles, and reinforcing the cult-fan reputation.
    The kids today however....watch it on video, and thought The Incredibles was better. ;)
     
  18. Edwin-S

    Edwin-S Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    5,969
    Likes Received:
    282
    Well, actually, the kids are right. The Incredibles is better than FN. FN is far down my list of Pixar favorites; although, it is still a pretty good movie.Of course, maybe I'm not qualified to judge. Of the six failures you listed, I have three in my collection.
     
    FoxyMulder likes this.
  19. todd s

    todd s Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 1999
    Messages:
    7,118
    Likes Received:
    71
    Saw this today with my 10yr old son. We enjoyed it. Yes, the beginning was draggy and they made the Lone Ranger too much of a dufus at the start. The train scene was cool. My son (who heard reviews saying it was bad) said at the end...that he didn't think it was bad.
     

Share This Page